Tzeses v. Barbahenn
| Decision Date | 28 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 48.,48. |
| Citation | 125 N.J.L. 643,17 A.2d 539 |
| Parties | TZESES v. BARBAHENN, Building Inspector. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In the construction of a zoning ordinance, where no facts are in dispute, a legal question, only, is presented.
2. In such a cause, mandamus is the proper remedy.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Mandamus proceeding by Leo Tzeses against Edwin W. Barbahenn, Building Inspector of the Township of Maplewood, New Jersey, to require defendant to issue a building permit. From a judgment for relator, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
Abram H. Cornish, of Newark (Otto Stiefel, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Kristeller & Zucker, of Newark (Saul J. Zucker, of Newark, of counsel), for relator-respondent.
CAMPBELL, Chancellor.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, which ordered that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue directed to the appellant to forthwith issue to the respondent certain building permits for which application had been denied.
The respondent is the owner of premises on the easterly side of Maplewood Avenue, which are located in a "one family residence district B" zone as fixed by the provisions of the zoning ordinance of the township.
The dimensions of the entire plot are as follows: Front line, 100 feet; rear line, 91.31 feet; northerly side line, 283.71 feet; and southerly side line 276 feet. The respondent filed with the appellant applications for building permits to erect two one-family residences on the above plot, having divided the plot in half for building purposes so that each lot had a front line of 50 feet, a depth of more than 275 feet, and an area of more than 13,000 square feet. The rear lines of each lot are 45.65 feet and 45.66 feet respectively, indicating that the plot tapers toward the center as the side lines approach the rear line.
The permits were refused by the appellant on the ground that the applications did not comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance in that the lots did not have "a minimum frontage of fifty feet."
The pertinent provisions of the ordinance are as follows:
The following definitions found in section 2 are urged as pertinent:
As his first point the appellant urges a construction of the ordinance upon which he based his refusal of the permits applied for. It is that the ordinance says that "the lesser frontage is the width" and then in turn defines the width as "its mean width at right angles to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. George v. Hull
... ... 537; Lutz v ... Kaltenbach, 102 N.J.L. 718, 131 A. 899; ... Builders' Realty Corporation v. Bigelow, 102 ... N.J.L. 433, 131 A. 888; Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 ... N.J.L. 643, 17 A.2d 539. And our result would have been the ... same had respondent sought the relief by certiorari. The ... ...
-
Graves v. Bloomfield Planning Bd.
...frontage,' since such frontage is to be measured at the 'most forward allowable building or setback line.' Cf. Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 N.J.L. 643, 17 A.2d 539 (E. & A. 1941). As provided in section 37 of article II, 'setback line shall be synonymous with the front yard,' and the minimum fr......
-
Restivo v. Princeton Const. Co.
...required a lot to front on a street seems to have been drawn also by the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey in Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 N.J.L. 643, 17 A.2d 539. The Baltimore City Ordinance gives other internal indications that a parcel of land on which a building is to be erected mu......
-
Lane v. Bigelow
...Lutz v. Kaltenbach, 102 N.J.L. 718, 131 A. 899; Builders' Realty Corporation v. Bigelow, 102 N.J.L. 433, 131 A. 888; Tzeses v. Barbahenn, 125 N.J.L. 643, 17 A.2d 539. And our result would have been the same had respondent sought the relief by certiorari. The general rule requiring exhaustio......